Joe,

You and your user may feel that they have thought this out thoroughly, but it sure appears otherwise.
The Y2K 'standards' have been set by persons far more skilled and talented than me or you or your users.

So you *only* enter dates for renewals. Whether this is auto or property, don't you have to enter vehicle/property-build year, and cannot those be in the prior century (or at least beyond whatever 'window' you may have determined??? If life stuff, do you not have policyholders (even applicable to auto and property, for discounts and such) born in 18xx or 19yy where 'yy' is before your rollover year?

Really, you would be much wiser to heed the experts who set the standards rather than to hang on to you and your users desires. Sometimes we do make wrong decisions, you know, and no matter how you feel about it, your position/decision is *wrong* here.

Jim N

>>>Thanks for your input, but I design systems to the users' specs.
>>
>>Even if the specs call for data to be entered in an ambiguous way?
>>
>>Entering "73" for a year is like enter "SMI" when you mean "SMITH". Fundamentally, it is ambigous and thus is open to error. Your code may interpret the "73" consistently as 1973 (because of the rollover setting) but sooner or later a user will come along that intended "73" to be "2073".
>>
>>Just passing on my two cents...
>
>When a user wants 73 to mean 2073 in this system, it will be in the year 2071 or later. The only time we enter future dates is for a client's next renewal date. Usually this is one year away. Sometimes as far as 3 years away.
>
>And, respectfully, it isn't important whether or not you feel 2 digit years are ambiguous in this system. It is important what the users feel. If we ever hire you to work as an administrator, then we will take your feelings on this subject into consideration. Please make your point. Sometimes they are helpful and it is appreciated. But when I tell you that we have already considered this, please respect that. Many factors are considered when changes are made to the system. Have you considered user attitudes when telling them that things are chinging in the system? This is something we have to consider.
>
>But the bottom line is that VFP 5.0 is forcing the 4 digit year on us (not when initially input, but anytime that field is re-visited). And this is not what we want.
>
>Joe